I've written up my recent testing of ejabberd for the wiki:
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Ejabberd_resource_tests
It is not completely satisfactory: I don't have the resources to test
up to 3000 active users which I believe is an important target. At
lower numbers, however, ejabberd's memory
I wrote:
It is not completely satisfactory: I don't have the resources to test
up to 3000 active users which I believe is an important target.
Just to clarify this: it was actually client resources I ran out of,
not the server (though that must have been getting close to melt
down).
I used
Michael Stone wrote:
I have decided to publish 8.2-765 as a signed Candidate
http://download.laptop.org/xo-1/os/candidate/765/ (raw os)
I reverted my signed (no-developer key) XO-1 back to build 650
(ship.1, 7.1.0) and did a ``olpc-update --usb`` to update to
candidate-765. I had the
Le jeudi 02 octobre 2008 à 19:28 +1300, Douglas Bagnall a écrit :
I wrote:
Hi Douglas,
It is not completely satisfactory: I don't have the resources to test
up to 3000 active users which I believe is an important target.
Just to clarify this: it was actually client resources I ran out
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 12:07:51AM -0400, Bobby Powers wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't mind if the G1G1 donors have the option to participate in
testing secured laptops, but I utterly reject the notion that we can
jerk customer/donors
Michel Dänzer wrote:
As a result of ee7c684f21d, the PutImage hook in ShmFuncs is no longer
being used. Shall I commit a cleanup?
ShmPutImage is still accelerated though (also, that commit is only in
1.5, not 1.4). What kind of cleanup do you have in mind?
Remove the unused PutImage hook
+1
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Erik Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 12:07:51AM -0400, Bobby Powers wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't mind if the G1G1 donors have the option to participate in
testing secured
Hi Michael,
Can you begin filling out the final ECO form for 8.2?
I believe that entails updating this page:
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/ECO/8.2.0/Checklist
Let's build it with the assumption that 8.2-767 will be the release
version. All systems are go according to the latest info I have.
Hi SJ,
quote who=Samuel Klein
We don't have to frame it as us vs. them. We can just announce the
state of current deployments, and discuss plans for future deployments
and G1G1, including whatever can be said in public about the Microsoft
trials. Everybody wants to know what's up with
Hi all,
I've just noticed that release candidate 765 when fully charged tells me I
have 2 1/2 hours of usage. This is a major concern, and something we really
need to fix for this release. As I tested it, it appeared to get about a
minute or two to each percentage of battery. Below are some
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Erik Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 12:07:51AM -0400, Bobby Powers wrote:
With that said, I would probably lean towards preferring unsecured
machines (with pretty boot enabled, of course).
Such small hassles, when repeated across
John, Mitch,
First, thanks for improving pretty-boot!
Second, I have a suggestion for you:
I have always regarded our various locks (software: firmware lock,
activation lock, kernel lock, reflash lock, root password, minimal
default ui; hardware: USB/SD slots, screws, solder-points) as
Mitch and I have come up with a way to ship G1G1 laptops so that they
will pretty-boot, but still come from the factory without any need
for developer keys (in the Forth disable-security setting).
This requires a small edit to /boot/olpc.fth in the OS build,
to load the XO child image, freeze
Pia,
From my reading of your description you ran the 765 and 711 test on
2 different machines and did not swap the battery between machines.
Is this correct?
If so there is a flaw in the methodology. You should ideally run all
tests on the same machine with the same battery or at least
How about providing dev. keys for G1G1 laptops with
no delay ?Would you consider it an improvement ?
wad
On Oct 1, 2008, at 10:15 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
Mitch and I have come up with a way to ship G1G1 laptops so that they
will pretty-boot, but still come from the factory without any
Hi all,
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:41:15 -0700, Robert Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From my reading of your description you ran the 765 and 711 test on
2 different machines and did not swap the battery between machines.
Is this correct?
If so there is a flaw in the methodology. You
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 12:27:48AM -0400, John Watlington wrote:
How about providing dev. keys for G1G1 laptops with
no delay ?Would you consider it an improvement ?
I would consider it a mediocre usability improvement in exchange for a
moderate security risk -- it fails to permit any
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM, John Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see this is utterly backwards. The countries that want $feature on their
laptops should be paying the price in support problems and
infrastructure.
I've edited your quote a bit. G1G1 participants support us is many
ways,
I've written up my recent testing of ejabberd for the wiki:
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Ejabberd_resource_tests
It is not completely satisfactory: I don't have the resources to test
up to 3000 active users which I believe is an important target. At
lower numbers, however, ejabberd's memory
I wrote:
It is not completely satisfactory: I don't have the resources to test
up to 3000 active users which I believe is an important target.
Just to clarify this: it was actually client resources I ran out of,
not the server (though that must have been getting close to melt
down).
I used
Greg,
We will be setting up two labs here in Nepal, one in the next couple
weeks and likely one in the first week of November at Nepal's Dept of
Education. Depending on our experiences in those labs, we want to roll
out a new version of the XS in November to our two pilot schools and
possibly a
Wad, you're right that Dansguardian is a can of worms but it is a very
important can of worms that needs to work w/ minimal configuration, at
least initially.
I would say that the initial install should set a medium level of
restriction and then leave it to the local deployment teams to tweak it
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On your question of who is waiting for XS 0.5, I know of at least two
deployments that are building labs and testing configurations with XS
software:
Paraguay
Birmingham
Those two appear to be a bit later. We can probably
I don't have time currently to work on this but I will ask Tony and our
interns Avash and Aakash to work on this.
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 00:37 -0400, John Watlington wrote:
Perhaps you want to suggest a specific set of configuration files
that provides what you consider a medium level of
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 18:09 +1300, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Bryan Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We will be setting up two labs here in Nepal, one in the next couple
weeks and likely one in the first week of November at Nepal's Dept of
Education. Depending on
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Bryan Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How happy are you with DanGuardian? Is it a useful filter?
We use it internally w/in our office and we are happy w/ it. We use it
locally to eat our own dog food. By default it blocks a lot if not
most content on the
26 matches
Mail list logo
